The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In case you missed it, on Wednesday 5th February Colin Powell goes before the UN with new evidence that, it is claimed, will prove the USA/UK alliance case against Saddam.
This is "supposed" to be the real damning stuff. Not vague reports, files e.t.c, but real imagery and intercepted communications.
Over the weekend on Fox, CNN, and in Time and Newsweek, one quote has popped up everywhere from an - as usual- unnamed official;
"Hold on to your hat. We've got it."
The information is supposed to come from the NSA, and such a release of information is unprecedented because it will reveal some of the agency's capability.
Key parts of it are intercepted communications between Iraqi officials saying about the movement and concealment of material, personnel and facilities, and the Iraqi's boasting about it afterwards to each other. This will be alongside imagery showing before inspections and after inspections shots of locations proving the movement and concealment of material e.t.c
Hopefully, this evidence will be as damning as it sounds to be. I feel this is essentially the last shot - the evidence needs to be made public now, not in 100 years time. This is a great chance for America and its allies to prove wrong all those who have criticised them and said Iraq was innocent of this. Beas skeptical as you want, but I honestly believe this is the real deal this time.
~~Belldandy~~
This is "supposed" to be the real damning stuff. Not vague reports, files e.t.c, but real imagery and intercepted communications.
Over the weekend on Fox, CNN, and in Time and Newsweek, one quote has popped up everywhere from an - as usual- unnamed official;
"Hold on to your hat. We've got it."
The information is supposed to come from the NSA, and such a release of information is unprecedented because it will reveal some of the agency's capability.
Key parts of it are intercepted communications between Iraqi officials saying about the movement and concealment of material, personnel and facilities, and the Iraqi's boasting about it afterwards to each other. This will be alongside imagery showing before inspections and after inspections shots of locations proving the movement and concealment of material e.t.c
Hopefully, this evidence will be as damning as it sounds to be. I feel this is essentially the last shot - the evidence needs to be made public now, not in 100 years time. This is a great chance for America and its allies to prove wrong all those who have criticised them and said Iraq was innocent of this. Beas skeptical as you want, but I honestly believe this is the real deal this time.
~~Belldandy~~
Page:
On the one hand, we have a war that may bring peace and reduce (not eradicate) a threat that may or may not exist. On the other hand we have Western leaders intent on sending out mass troops to kill the mass troops sent out by another leader.
Where war exists there is little logic. Should we compare this to World War 2? No. For a start it is not another country that has declared war on us or any of our allies. It is America stating that they believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Their logical conclusion is that he has the ability to destroy and therefore will use this ability against them, there is no proof of this, even if there is proof that these weapons or means exist.
War will inevitably mean the loss of many lives on both sides. Last time it did not mean the end of Saddam Hussein or his regime, will it this time? Who knows. Hands up who believes he will stick around long enough to find out. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that he will disappear as quickly as Osama did last time and the army did a great job of finding him, didn’t they?
Meanwhile, Saddam himself uses this hatred from the west to strengthen his own position as glorious leader of Iraq, making him look all the more righteous to ‘his’ people, those that support him and those that have no choice but to live under fear of his rule.
Where war exists there is little logic. Should we compare this to World War 2? No. For a start it is not another country that has declared war on us or any of our allies. It is America stating that they believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Their logical conclusion is that he has the ability to destroy and therefore will use this ability against them, there is no proof of this, even if there is proof that these weapons or means exist.
War will inevitably mean the loss of many lives on both sides. Last time it did not mean the end of Saddam Hussein or his regime, will it this time? Who knows. Hands up who believes he will stick around long enough to find out. It’s pretty obvious to anyone that he will disappear as quickly as Osama did last time and the army did a great job of finding him, didn’t they?
Meanwhile, Saddam himself uses this hatred from the west to strengthen his own position as glorious leader of Iraq, making him look all the more righteous to ‘his’ people, those that support him and those that have no choice but to live under fear of his rule.
Yo Bell:
Why is it that if it fits your arguments then it is correct and unquestionable. But if it does not agree with your views, then it is "ostrich" like and false?
Could it be we're both right and both wrong? Remember mate, you get your news from exactly the same sources us lefties do. It's all in how you choose to view it.
Personally I believe Bush is a liar and a murderer. A man of limited intelligence and heavy weapons.
America, as a government state and NOT the people, acts like an angry retard. It's like being lorded over by a child twice your size with simplistic world views and a hot-temper. I see it as Lenny with any country that opposes as the rabbit.
What I find hard to accept from your comments, and this is not a personal attack merely me stating my difficulties in respecting a lot of what you say, is that it doesnt come from experience.
No disrespect meant mate, but speaking as a person that had an Uncle that worked for various organisations with letters in their names and a cousin currently en-route to the Middle East courtesy of Canadian Airborne seconded to a US deployment - I dont want to see people killed.
I'm sure it's all for god and country and protecting our freedoms, but I dont want to lose another relative in this farcical series of spats and disagreements.
It's one thing to thump the war-drum and state that we must go in and remove him...but then what? You play a video-game and have your dinner whilst watching video of bombs flying down airducts.
It doesn't have any directly personal consequences to you at all. It's something to watch on the tv and feel good that we got rid of Hussein.
If it were your cousin/brother/uncle/father being sent thousands of miles away to try and remove a dictator that has never threatened The West in over however many years of rule, perhaps you may think differently.
Perhaps not, I don't know.
I do know that this is more than just statistics, facts and figures to be digested over a hard day's work.
This is not about "removing Saddam Hussein", that is a nice sanitary way of explaining what will happen.
What this impending war will involve is a man with a gun trying to shoot another man in the face because their leaders have decided that somebody they installed in the 1st place is now an enemy.
This is about setting people on fire with bombs, this is about shattering people's bodies with ordanance and then having to do it again and again and again simply to secure a region that you'll never see or care about.
This is a man born in Edmonton, Candada being sent overseas to try and kill a man born in Iraq.
It's death. And I don't want that to happen to my relatives anymore.
Just as the people of Iraq, and the people of Afghanistan have done nothing at all but live in fear. Imagine trying to continue your life knowing that America is coming to invade you. You may be killed. Maybe on purpose, maybe by accident.
We have the ability and technology to send a very small unit in and kill Hussein. All this intelligence and info and we need to send thousands of troops over? If it was that important, we could kill Hussein in a heartbeat.
This is about a show of force and nothing more. This isn't about oil, this isn't about protecting the West from terror.
This is politics, pure and simple. And as a result of this, people will die.
Everyone here was horrified by Sept 11th (no links at all to the Gulf, as admitted by Tony Blair and if you disagree, that means you have to admit Blair is a liar). It was shocking, raw and caused anger. You spoke about it to your friends and family and shook your fist at Bin Laden and watched footage over and over of the buildings collapse. Then you went to work and talked about Eastenders.
I watched those towers collapse and the pentagon hit and realised a family member was in there.
Then getting a phone call and hearing that he died.
Then having to fly to Virginia for the funeral and put someone in the ground that took me to bars and get drunk in Washington and gave me a tour of Quantico and The Pentagon.
I dont want to do that again because a stupid Texan is intent on proving that he is just as tough as daddy.
If this war meant anything, then Bush would have the courage to go one on one with Hussein and have a fight like adults.
Not send thousands of young men to possibly be torn apart by other young men who are equally scared, confused and not wanting to die.
This war is a sham, the reasons are a joke and the notion that George W Bush and Tony Blair speak for me is as ludicrous as suggesting that all Iraqis hate The West and all Afghans cheered on September the 11th.
Goddamn anybody that is willing to send people to their deaths whilst they sit in bunkers and move little pieces around a map and drink tea.
Why is it that if it fits your arguments then it is correct and unquestionable. But if it does not agree with your views, then it is "ostrich" like and false?
Could it be we're both right and both wrong? Remember mate, you get your news from exactly the same sources us lefties do. It's all in how you choose to view it.
Personally I believe Bush is a liar and a murderer. A man of limited intelligence and heavy weapons.
America, as a government state and NOT the people, acts like an angry retard. It's like being lorded over by a child twice your size with simplistic world views and a hot-temper. I see it as Lenny with any country that opposes as the rabbit.
What I find hard to accept from your comments, and this is not a personal attack merely me stating my difficulties in respecting a lot of what you say, is that it doesnt come from experience.
No disrespect meant mate, but speaking as a person that had an Uncle that worked for various organisations with letters in their names and a cousin currently en-route to the Middle East courtesy of Canadian Airborne seconded to a US deployment - I dont want to see people killed.
I'm sure it's all for god and country and protecting our freedoms, but I dont want to lose another relative in this farcical series of spats and disagreements.
It's one thing to thump the war-drum and state that we must go in and remove him...but then what? You play a video-game and have your dinner whilst watching video of bombs flying down airducts.
It doesn't have any directly personal consequences to you at all. It's something to watch on the tv and feel good that we got rid of Hussein.
If it were your cousin/brother/uncle/father being sent thousands of miles away to try and remove a dictator that has never threatened The West in over however many years of rule, perhaps you may think differently.
Perhaps not, I don't know.
I do know that this is more than just statistics, facts and figures to be digested over a hard day's work.
This is not about "removing Saddam Hussein", that is a nice sanitary way of explaining what will happen.
What this impending war will involve is a man with a gun trying to shoot another man in the face because their leaders have decided that somebody they installed in the 1st place is now an enemy.
This is about setting people on fire with bombs, this is about shattering people's bodies with ordanance and then having to do it again and again and again simply to secure a region that you'll never see or care about.
This is a man born in Edmonton, Candada being sent overseas to try and kill a man born in Iraq.
It's death. And I don't want that to happen to my relatives anymore.
Just as the people of Iraq, and the people of Afghanistan have done nothing at all but live in fear. Imagine trying to continue your life knowing that America is coming to invade you. You may be killed. Maybe on purpose, maybe by accident.
We have the ability and technology to send a very small unit in and kill Hussein. All this intelligence and info and we need to send thousands of troops over? If it was that important, we could kill Hussein in a heartbeat.
This is about a show of force and nothing more. This isn't about oil, this isn't about protecting the West from terror.
This is politics, pure and simple. And as a result of this, people will die.
Everyone here was horrified by Sept 11th (no links at all to the Gulf, as admitted by Tony Blair and if you disagree, that means you have to admit Blair is a liar). It was shocking, raw and caused anger. You spoke about it to your friends and family and shook your fist at Bin Laden and watched footage over and over of the buildings collapse. Then you went to work and talked about Eastenders.
I watched those towers collapse and the pentagon hit and realised a family member was in there.
Then getting a phone call and hearing that he died.
Then having to fly to Virginia for the funeral and put someone in the ground that took me to bars and get drunk in Washington and gave me a tour of Quantico and The Pentagon.
I dont want to do that again because a stupid Texan is intent on proving that he is just as tough as daddy.
If this war meant anything, then Bush would have the courage to go one on one with Hussein and have a fight like adults.
Not send thousands of young men to possibly be torn apart by other young men who are equally scared, confused and not wanting to die.
This war is a sham, the reasons are a joke and the notion that George W Bush and Tony Blair speak for me is as ludicrous as suggesting that all Iraqis hate The West and all Afghans cheered on September the 11th.
Goddamn anybody that is willing to send people to their deaths whilst they sit in bunkers and move little pieces around a map and drink tea.
I don't believe a word that comes out Bush's mouth. I don't believe a word that comes out Blair's mouth. I don't believe a word that comes out Saddam's mouth. This war was decided on months ago: whether as a smokescreen for failing to rat out Bin Laden, or a quest for oil, or just for for hell of it, I don't know. The diplomacy is just a sham.
Belldandy wrote:
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
>
> Because the UN cannot be trusted with the kind of intelligence this
> is, and because, as suspected earlier and confirmed today, Iraq spies
> on the inspectors thus giving them the intel would negate its value
> anyway.
And the US can be trusted after tampering with samples they've been given? Erm...don't ask me to tell you what the samples were of, I've not really kept up with this whole yawn-inducing war recently, and now it looks like it might get good I'm behind. All I know is that identical samples were given to the US, France, and Switzerland (I think it was Switzerland), and the US claimed to have found something in theirs that wasn't in the others. They tampered with it.
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
>
> Because the UN cannot be trusted with the kind of intelligence this
> is, and because, as suspected earlier and confirmed today, Iraq spies
> on the inspectors thus giving them the intel would negate its value
> anyway.
And the US can be trusted after tampering with samples they've been given? Erm...don't ask me to tell you what the samples were of, I've not really kept up with this whole yawn-inducing war recently, and now it looks like it might get good I'm behind. All I know is that identical samples were given to the US, France, and Switzerland (I think it was Switzerland), and the US claimed to have found something in theirs that wasn't in the others. They tampered with it.
Goatboy wrote:
> Questions for you to answer:
> Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Go find the text of Powell's UN briefing, probably some news sites also have the video of it.
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
Because the UN cannot be trusted with the kind of intelligence this is, and because, as suspected earlier and confirmed today, Iraq spies on the inspectors thus giving them the intel would negate its value anyway.
> Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no
> threat towards The West?
Because for 11 years the generally liberal / left media has ignored the continuing situation in Iraq, has generally ignored the no fly zone sorties, and because too many people in too many countries needed the deaths of close to 3000 people in a western city to wake them up to the blindingly obvious threat of terrorism that had existed for decades. How many people took Al Queda's threats seriously pre 9/11 ? No one in public did, nor had many heard of them. You want to wait for Iraq to do something before we take notice ? Great, then we all can all look back and say "s£it, he really was a danger, ah well".
> Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
Er they are. A carrier group is enroute from Japan, US forces are on higher alert status and the much vaunted diplomacy is engoing. How come you can lambast Bush\Blair for wanting to take action againts one country, then complain they are not doing likewise to another ?
> Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing
> as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we
> agree"
Because Europe, for the most part, is the metaphorical ostrich with it's head in the sand. Powell's evidence today was pretty damning, yet still little enthusiasm. Iraq is making a mockery of the UN. What does 1441 say in essence ? No co operation = consequences. Where are the consequences eh ? No where, where is the co operation, same place as the consequences...
> Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of
> feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into
> war.
Well I couldn't resist...
~~Belldandy~~
> Questions for you to answer:
> Where is the evidence of WOMD?
Go find the text of Powell's UN briefing, probably some news sites also have the video of it.
> Why was Bush's new evidence not handed over to assist the UN
> Inspectors?
Because the UN cannot be trusted with the kind of intelligence this is, and because, as suspected earlier and confirmed today, Iraq spies on the inspectors thus giving them the intel would negate its value anyway.
> Why is Hussein suddenly a threat after 11 years of absolutely no
> threat towards The West?
Because for 11 years the generally liberal / left media has ignored the continuing situation in Iraq, has generally ignored the no fly zone sorties, and because too many people in too many countries needed the deaths of close to 3000 people in a western city to wake them up to the blindingly obvious threat of terrorism that had existed for decades. How many people took Al Queda's threats seriously pre 9/11 ? No one in public did, nor had many heard of them. You want to wait for Iraq to do something before we take notice ? Great, then we all can all look back and say "s£it, he really was a danger, ah well".
> Why is Bush/Blair not acting upon North Korea?
Er they are. A carrier group is enroute from Japan, US forces are on higher alert status and the much vaunted diplomacy is engoing. How come you can lambast Bush\Blair for wanting to take action againts one country, then complain they are not doing likewise to another ?
> Why is it that most other European Countries are saying the same thing
> as a lot of people here, "Show us irrefutable evidence before we
> agree"
Because Europe, for the most part, is the metaphorical ostrich with it's head in the sand. Powell's evidence today was pretty damning, yet still little enthusiasm. Iraq is making a mockery of the UN. What does 1441 say in essence ? No co operation = consequences. Where are the consequences eh ? No where, where is the co operation, same place as the consequences...
> Just Lakersrule please, I'm interested in his response instead of
> feeling the need to attack those that wish to wait before barging into
> war.
Well I couldn't resist...
~~Belldandy~~
Having watched the whole thing I think three things are pretty clear;
1. The evidence was as clear as it gets. Iraq is hiding the weapons, the people, the documents, and terrorists.
2. The statements following Powell's briefing we're pretty mindless on most parts with countries like China ignoring everything which had been said. It was detailed how the inspectors had been misled, tricked and so on, yet China wanted to let the inspectors work longer. I'm sorry, but when did so many countries suddenly get so fatalistic.
3. It seems more likely than ever that the USA, the UK, and a select few allies will have to do this alone. The moment the first cruise missile launches is the moment you can forget the UN as a credible body. today's briefing was clear, factual, reliable, yet the willingness to act is not there. This is becoming the League Of Nations 2.....
Unless the UN QUICKLY draws together another resolution with an immediate deadline for Saddam and an unequivicoable (wrong spelling I know) statement that failure to do so means instand military action then we may as well demolish the UN HQ in New York and set about making a world body that is more than an intellectual talking shop. If the UN was a product then trading standards would not allow it to be sold, it's anything but united, and America, the UK, and a select few are the only ones who actually give a damn. China, Russia, France and Germany are too interested in the loss of revenue once Saddam is toppled - and thats just for starters. Meanwhile N.Korea is taking advantage of the sham that is the UN to do whatever the hell it feels like. There is only one use for the reactivation of Nuclear facilities in N.Korea and it sure isn't peaceful.
Gentlemen, and ladies, we are truly on the road to hell here, and all because so many fear to act decisively. What is ironic is that those who have sought peace at all costs - in other words those who oppose all militar action - have led us to this point. Yay for the liberals ! Yay for the left ! Yay for no war !
Goodnight.
~~Belldandy~~
1. The evidence was as clear as it gets. Iraq is hiding the weapons, the people, the documents, and terrorists.
2. The statements following Powell's briefing we're pretty mindless on most parts with countries like China ignoring everything which had been said. It was detailed how the inspectors had been misled, tricked and so on, yet China wanted to let the inspectors work longer. I'm sorry, but when did so many countries suddenly get so fatalistic.
3. It seems more likely than ever that the USA, the UK, and a select few allies will have to do this alone. The moment the first cruise missile launches is the moment you can forget the UN as a credible body. today's briefing was clear, factual, reliable, yet the willingness to act is not there. This is becoming the League Of Nations 2.....
Unless the UN QUICKLY draws together another resolution with an immediate deadline for Saddam and an unequivicoable (wrong spelling I know) statement that failure to do so means instand military action then we may as well demolish the UN HQ in New York and set about making a world body that is more than an intellectual talking shop. If the UN was a product then trading standards would not allow it to be sold, it's anything but united, and America, the UK, and a select few are the only ones who actually give a damn. China, Russia, France and Germany are too interested in the loss of revenue once Saddam is toppled - and thats just for starters. Meanwhile N.Korea is taking advantage of the sham that is the UN to do whatever the hell it feels like. There is only one use for the reactivation of Nuclear facilities in N.Korea and it sure isn't peaceful.
Gentlemen, and ladies, we are truly on the road to hell here, and all because so many fear to act decisively. What is ironic is that those who have sought peace at all costs - in other words those who oppose all militar action - have led us to this point. Yay for the liberals ! Yay for the left ! Yay for no war !
Goodnight.
~~Belldandy~~
I'm picking a fight with some of the cretins in FOG. They're trying to justify getting chatted up by a pair (or only one) of birds using the Ninty forum to plant a tirade of sexual innuendo's and blown kisses.
Heh
I was fixing my stupid car yesterday.
Who wants a fight?
I was fixing my stupid car yesterday.
Who wants a fight?
Yay, it was boring without Goatboy yesterday.
I understand your stance with zero problem. What did irk me, however, was your blanket statement of "anti-americans".
Which was wrong, I'm not anti-American at all. Quite the opposite as half of my family live there.
I am anti-Bush. Because he is a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist anything is bad when it comes to being in charge of a country. That's exactly why he has decided Iraq is a threat. Just because it's god and not allah doesn't make it right.
I'm also anti-Bush because of the farcical manner in which he was "elected", with the victory being announced based on results in a country where his brother Jeb is governor. Before all the votes had been counted.
And having read the way in which the votes were collected with a large proportion of ethnic votes discounted (Stupid White Men by Michael Moore as well as a report from 60 Minutes) indicates that the notion he was elected in a free-democratic manner, frankly, a joke.
I'm also anti-Bush because of his business dealings with blue-chip companies that donated over $2 billion to his campaign fund and several drugs companies that he has stock in (including 2 that specialise in retro-virus research. Which is in no way beneficial since the AIDs funding announced).
I'm against Bush because when he was governor of Texas, he oversaw more death-sentences that any other county in the history of The United States.
I'm against Bush because of his support of pro-life groups that bomb clinics and murder doctors. He tried, and failed, to change legislation to make abortion extremely difficult - if not impossible - to obtain.
I'm anti-Bush because the man is a stumbling buffoon that couldn't name any world leaders almost 3 weeks after his election and had to be shown where the United Kingdom was on a map before his meeting with Blair. Before becoming President, Bush left the state of Texas twice in his lifetime.
My unease with the Iraq situation isn't based on "He's stupid and evil because he looks like a cowboy".
My dislike of Bush is because I believe he is a borderline mongoloid with zero intelligence of the world around him, a suspicious basis for being The President, proven links to corrupt businessmen and drug dealers and for the fact that his father is quite possibly more evil and responsible for the murders of more foreign nationals that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda put together.
*phew*
Now I'm off for a smoke.
Which was wrong, I'm not anti-American at all. Quite the opposite as half of my family live there.
I am anti-Bush. Because he is a fundamentalist Christian and a fundamentalist anything is bad when it comes to being in charge of a country. That's exactly why he has decided Iraq is a threat. Just because it's god and not allah doesn't make it right.
I'm also anti-Bush because of the farcical manner in which he was "elected", with the victory being announced based on results in a country where his brother Jeb is governor. Before all the votes had been counted.
And having read the way in which the votes were collected with a large proportion of ethnic votes discounted (Stupid White Men by Michael Moore as well as a report from 60 Minutes) indicates that the notion he was elected in a free-democratic manner, frankly, a joke.
I'm also anti-Bush because of his business dealings with blue-chip companies that donated over $2 billion to his campaign fund and several drugs companies that he has stock in (including 2 that specialise in retro-virus research. Which is in no way beneficial since the AIDs funding announced).
I'm against Bush because when he was governor of Texas, he oversaw more death-sentences that any other county in the history of The United States.
I'm against Bush because of his support of pro-life groups that bomb clinics and murder doctors. He tried, and failed, to change legislation to make abortion extremely difficult - if not impossible - to obtain.
I'm anti-Bush because the man is a stumbling buffoon that couldn't name any world leaders almost 3 weeks after his election and had to be shown where the United Kingdom was on a map before his meeting with Blair. Before becoming President, Bush left the state of Texas twice in his lifetime.
My unease with the Iraq situation isn't based on "He's stupid and evil because he looks like a cowboy".
My dislike of Bush is because I believe he is a borderline mongoloid with zero intelligence of the world around him, a suspicious basis for being The President, proven links to corrupt businessmen and drug dealers and for the fact that his father is quite possibly more evil and responsible for the murders of more foreign nationals that Saddam Hussein and Al Queda put together.
*phew*
Now I'm off for a smoke.
Page: